PJ Talks Bombadil

[emplynx]

From the TheOneRing.net

PJ Talks Bombadil

"What we did contemplate," Jackson recalled, "and it was really for the fans, was to have the hobbits walking through the Old Forest and to see a feathered cap come darting through the trees, to hear the sound of Tom Bombadil's voice and son and then have the hobbits turn and run away as fast as they could!(he laughed) We thought (that)would acknowledge Tom Bombadil in an affectionate-joke kind of way. We didn't have time to do it."

(from the Dec/Jan 2002 Volume 33 No. 6 issue of Cinefantastique in the article titled LOTR:FOTR Peter Jackson Being True to Tolkien: The New Zealand Director Honors a Literary Classic)

[dark over lord]

Tom had a son? I thought it was his daughter or wife who was in the book

[jerseydevil]

No son - just Goldberry his wife. Although I don't think they ever use the term wife.

If that is an actual quote from Jackson - I'm really beginning to wonder if he really knows much about the characters in LOTR. Do they make LOTR Cliff Notes?

[Pailan]

I think the word was supposed to be song, which would make more sense.

[jerseydevil]

Okay - that'll make sense then. Scared me for a moment with that quote.

[emplynx]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Do they make LOTR Cliff Notes?

Just go to http://www.cliffsnotes.com/product.asp?prod_id=1367 to find The Lord of the Rings & The Hobbit Cliffs Notes!

[spidersbane]

Originally posted by Pailan
I think the word was supposed to be song, which would make more sense.

I tend to agree with Pailan. From what I've read about the making of the movie PJ probably knows the books and characters better than most other people.

[Yazad]

It seems that Jackson was happy throwing bones (like this one for Tom) to the fans. It kinda irritated me. I would have rather had these things left out altogether than introduced and not been follwed through on. This was one of my major beefs with the film. I'm hoping that if extra footage is added back it'll help iron these areas out.

Yazad

[jerseydevil]

Well what about the irritating way that in the first 1/4 of the movie he had to have a line that stated what chapter they were in, i.e, Long Expected Part, Short Cut to Mushrooms. And I didn't like the way he turned a friendly dinner with Farmer Maggot (forgiving Frodo for stealing mushrooms) to a chase scene.

I believe that Jackson probably does know the books - I do however think that he in no way made a movie that was anywhere near comparable to them. He had the action - but left out the heart and soul.

[barrelrider110]

I agree with Yazad. I think Tom was a pivotal character, too easily cut out for the sake of time. Fans of Bombadil would not have seen the humor in that cameo for those-who-have-not-yet-read-LOTR it would have been pointless. Would be nice to see him in the DVD, but I think that's a pipe dream. The old forest is still one of my favorite chapters. The subject of Tom Bombadil opens many possibilities. Like, who would you have picked to play him? That's a subject for a whole 'nother thread.

[orald]

quoted by: barrelrider110-Like, who would you have picked to play him? That's a subject for a whole 'nother thread.
______________________________________________
There was another thread about this,and the best choice I saw,after I thought about it was by Michael Martinez,he said Robin Williams,and I agree,if he chose the "World according to Garp"seriousness,i'd say he could have done an awesome job.

[sracer]

EXACTLY! Tom Bombadil was PIVOTAL!!!! The Fellowship of the Ring made absolutely no sense without him! If Peter Jackson was so strapped to keep the running time down, he should've eliminated other, less PIVOTAL characters... like Merry or Pippin!

[ragamuffin92]

Robin Williams!! Good choice. He doesn't fit my mental image, but he would probably be the best actor to play the part. I am STILL laughing over his Genie character in Alladin.

Re: Bombadil's importance--I recently read a quote from Professor T, stating that Tom was not essential to therest of the story, but for the life of me, I can't remember where I saw it.

[Littledude87]

I wish they had put Bobadil in the movie, Sigh i was looking forward to see how they casted him.

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

EXACTLY! Tom Bombadil was PIVOTAL!!!! The Fellowship of the Ring made absolutely no sense without him! If Peter Jackson was so strapped to keep the running time down, he should've eliminated other, less PIVOTAL characters... like Merry or Pippin!

So let me get this straight... A man(I call him a man for the sake of conveinence) living in the Old Forest, a forest near the shire, who was added because Tolkien's children wanted him to put him in, that has little or no relevance to the rest of the book is more "PIVOTAL" than Merry and Pippin, who Find the ents, Make the mines of Moria aware of the fellowship, kill the witchking, Aid in the battle at the gates of Mordor, get captured by a band of Uruk-Hai, Swear oaths to two seperate kings, Talk to sauron in the pantir, Alert the Mouth of Sauron of the fact that they recognize the mithril of Frodo, and many other things...

I enjoyed Tom Bombadill's part in the book, but it was FAR from "PIVOTAL"

and now for my seemingly pointless smiles which brighten the mean tone of my post

[Renille]

what's a pantir???

Seriously, though. For once, I semi-agree with you, Carden. I do think Tom Bombadil's part was important...to the book. If Peter Jackson had merely included the old forest or the barrow downs WITHOUT Bombadil, well, the hobbits either would have been killed twice or forced to find some other way out, which would not have been likely. But without those two scenes, Bombadil would have made no sense to the non-readers. Even I think including Bombadil in the movie as it was would have been slightly confusing.( Though now they can't show the passing- by- the old forest- and -wanting -to -see -Tom- again scene on the way home. ) I do wish they had included the whole barrow-forest part, but I think that as the film was, Bombadil would have made no sense.

And the eliminating Merry or Pippin idea is laughable. Tolkien lovers are complaining about Bombadil's loss; we'd probably all boycott the movie if they cut Merry or Pippin. Who would make up the ninth person in the fellowship, after that, anyway? Arwen? J/K.

Okay, forgive my pointless post. I am already half asleep.

[barrelrider110]

Pivotal: Of, relating to, or constituting a pivot.

Pivot:
1 : a shaft or pin on which something turns
2 a : a person, thing, or factor having a major or central role, function, or effect
Tom Bombadil and the Old Forest detour are pivotal elements in the story of the Fellowship of the ring. Are they essential?

Essential: Of the utmost importance: Basic, indispensable, necessary.

e.g., Pippin and Merry are essential, Tom is not.

Tom is pivotal.

As Renille points out, Tom was the key element in the chapter of the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs: (1) We sense a real change in the story, it becomes less like the “second Hobbit” it started out to be. It becomes more serious, darker, and deeper. (2) Without the detour through the Old Forest surely the hobbits would have been overtaken by the Ringwraiths along the road. (3) The ring had no power over Bombadil (as is explained at the council of Elrond). It established that there were powers older, greater than Sauron. (4) Merry obtains the blade that first strikes the Witch King, enabling Eowyn to deliver the killing blow. The Witch King felt the pain from that blow because the blade was forged by the men of Westernesse, of the kingdom of Arnor, with whom he fought bitterly long ago. It was a pain he remembered. (Sorry, I don’t have the book with me, or I would quote it) Without that blow would Eowyn have been able to behead him? No. She would have been killed easily.

In the movie, the Strider dumps some blades out of a bag and gives them to the hobbits, I doubt if the story behind the blade and Merry’s stroke will ever make it to the movie version of ROTK. If not, I’ll be disappointed. That’s an important thread in the story. It is one of the most important threads that tie LOTR into the Professor’s idea of Middle Earth as mythology.

Easily edited out? Yes

Does it matter why Professor Tolkien put Tom Bombadil in the story? No.

If Tom were included in the movie, would it have confused non-readers? Yes.

Robin Williams as Bombadil? Excellent choice. An actor capable of going from silly to serious.

Is Bombadil a pivotal character? Yes.

[sracer]

Carden, my previous post was intended to be sarcastic.

Barrelrider, the common (but as you pointed out not the correct) usage of pivotal is as a synonym of essential. In that context, Bombadil is not essential. IMO, he wasn't even pivotal.

The point that a few of us have tried to make (on this board, as well as others) is that the omission of Tom Bombadil isn't the grave error that some would make it out to be.

[barrelrider110]

Thank you for bringing me back to the subject sracer. The quote I was searching for was from ROTK:

"So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of the Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his undead sinews to his will."

So Merry's stroke had as much to do with the Witch King's demise as Eowyn, which made the rescue from the barrow a significant turning point. That was Tom's contribution.

No, the omission of Tom Bombadil is not a grave error. Omission of the blade would be.

[Gerbil]

Firstly I can't believe SRacer had to point out his comments were sarcastic

Secondly as I've mentioned in other threads I'm glad they omitted Tom - WAAAAY too much chance to get it wrong.

Thirdly Tom simply isn't relevant to the story at all. Really it isn't. You can't argue that at all. It's part of the story yes, so leaving it out is not true to the books, but for helping the story along? It simply filled the dull time until Rivendell, which PJ got around via other methods

Fourthly, as for the relevance of the swords from the Barrow-downs, PJ has already buggered that one up. I am definately wondering how he's going to explain away death of Nazgul. Whichever way I see it, he's made a serious error. Only thing I can think of is if Merry's sword comes from some descendant Numenorean weapon horde, eg it's specially chosen from the weapons at Edoras. Which IS possible I suppose, but pretty far fetched. Although not as far fetched as Aragorn simply carrying around 4 very special weapons.